2008 (8) TMI 294 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant were providing service under the category of Advertising Agency by procuring space for providing advertisement on KSRTC buses, raising hoardings and advertisement through display boards on CCTV - Prima facie, the judgment of tribunal in case of Rex Advertisers v. CST, Bangalore holding that procuring horading space from municipal authorities not covered under Advertising Agency Service, and the Board s Circular No. 64/13/2003, dated 28-10-2003 would apply to the facts of the case stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is required to pre-deposit a certain amount.
2. Whether the services provided by the appellant fall under the category of "Advertising Agency."
3. Whether the judgment in Rex Advertisers v. CST, Bangalore - 2006 (2) S.T.R. 330 (Tri.-Bang.) is applicable to the present case.
4. Whether the Board's Circular No. 64/13/2003 is relevant to the case.
5. Whether the appellant should be granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis:

1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 13,33,197. The appellant provided services under the category of "Advertising Agency" by procuring space for advertisements on KSRTC buses, hoardings, and display boards on CCTV. In a previous case, Rex Advertisers v. CST, Bangalore, it was held that procuring hoarding space for advertisements does not amount to taxable service under the category of "advertising agency."

2. The appellant argued that the issue was covered by the judgment in Rex Advertisers and Board's Circular No. 64/13/2003. The appellant referenced several judgments cited in Rex Advertisers to support their position.

3. The Respondent contended that the judgments were distinguishable as the appellant provided advertising agency services through CCTV at KSRTC bus stand and display hoardings directly, falling under the definition of "Advertising Agency." The distinction was made that the appellant did not procure space from municipal authorities, as in the Rex Advertisers case.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that prima facie, the judgment and the Board's Circular applied to the facts of the case. Further details were deemed necessary at the final stage. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery based on the prima facie coverage by the citation. The appeal was listed for an expedited hearing on 15th October 2008.

5. The Tribunal pronounced and dictated the decision in open court, allowing the stay application and granting a waiver of pre-deposit to the appellant. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on the specified date.